Thursday, February 17, 2011

What is a 'Mass' Confiscation?

From Josh Horwitz, ED of the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership (or more likely his trained puppet Ladd Everitt):
" Following Hurricane Katrina, the NRA promoted a conspiracy theory about mass gun confiscati­ons in Katrina...­"
When this was refuted, CSGV employee 'Grits Jr.' opined:
The NRA had to hire private investigat­ors and located only 75 New Orleans residents (in a city with a pre-Katrin­a population of 450,000) that would claim their guns were confiscate­d.
So 'only' 75 people had their guns illegally confiscated (even though there were hundreds more not found) and the city was found in contempt of court for denying even that.

So what would be a 'mass confiscation' in the mind of a gun control advocate? 100? 200? What would it take for them to consider it to be 'unreasonable'?

This has been your look into the thought process of statist gun control advocates who believe the Gov't should have ultimate power over the people.

Unorganized Militia Gear

Unorganized Militia Gear

Follow TrailerDays on Twitter

5 comments:

Linoge said...

If it happened, it is not a conspiracy.

Likewise, "GritsJR"'s sanguine attitude to the government arbitrarily and whimsically stealing private property from law-abiding citizens more than tips his hand as to what he wants and expects from the future.

But, hey, if only 75 blacks are imprisoned for getting "uppity", I guess that is pretty much a non-event too, and a complete conspiracy to boot!

Anonymous said...

The point is that the mayor and police cheif felt they had the right and authority to confiscate firearms.
An order to seize firearms went out to the police and NG. THAT constitutes mass confiscation, not the volume of firearms seized.
Paul in Texas

Stuart the Viking said...

Because they did not have authority to confisgate the firearms in question (see court case), the officials who were doing the confisgating were, in effect, committing armed robbery. Notice I said "in effect" not "in fact". The reason that it is not an "in fact" is that that the officers were presumabley acting under the color of law. I don't know the laws of the New Orleans area, however, I do know that here in Florida, armed robbery is a forceable felony meaning a felony that you can use a deadly weapon to stop or prevent. SO, the question is, which controls, color of law or prevention of a forceable felony? If one of those who were having their firearm confisgated defended themselves with said firearm, would it have been justified?

I am asking the question, not condoning firearms confisgation or the shooting of government officials.

s

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann said...

If somebody shot 75 people, would Grits Jr. object to calling it a "mass shooting"? Hell, if somebody shot five people, would he criticize the accuracy of that terminology?

My guess is "no," on both counts.

kaveman said...

"What is a 'Mass' Confiscation? "

Why in the hell are we discussing confiscating Massachutests...Massuchooses...Massachootis...where weer'd lives!